3 ms·

It's for this reason that I'm strongly in favor of body-mounted surveillance cameras for all public servants. The key is making sure that everyone has access t

It's for this reason that I'm strongly in favor of body-mounted surveillance cameras for all public servants. The key is making sure that everyone has access to the data, not just some surveillance team in a back room. For stings and such like this, the footage would be held until the end of the operation, but would be required to be released immediately at the end of the operation. "Missing time" would be rigorously scrutinized. If we really believe that our law enforcement and other public servants are serving the public, there should be zero opposition to allowing anyone to review video archives of officer-mounted cameras at any time via an anonymous, no login needed, web interface. Sunshine is the solution.

gizmo686 13y ago
I think you are slightly to extreme in your publication of the video. I agree that law enforcement officers (and probably most public servants) do not have an expectation of privacy while on duty, however other people who get recorded do. If the police have a video of me talking with the police than I would not necessarily want that video publicly accessible. However, if I am charged with a crime, those videos should be made available to me along with all the other evidence. Furthermore, If I am the subject of a video, I should have a right to it, and to publish it myself (possibly with the consent of other third parties in the video). Also, if the video was from a clearly public place/event than there is no expectation of privacy in the first place, so it should be publicly available (possibly also by request for practical reasons).
- RankingMember 13y ago
  You're right. I was spitballing; there'd need to be safety mechanisms (The devil/corruption potential is in the details) to ensure situations like the one you hypothesized wouldn't result in the privacy of people who aren't public servants being compromised with cameras involved.

gizmo686 13y ago

I think you are slightly to extreme in your publication of the video. I agree that law enforcement officers (and probably most public servants) do not have an expectation of privacy while on duty, however other people who get recorded do. If the police have a video of me talking with the police than I would not necessarily want that video publicly accessible. However, if I am charged with a crime, those videos should be made available to me along with all the other evidence. Furthermore, If I am the subject of a video, I should have a right to it, and to publish it myself (possibly with the consent of other third parties in the video). Also, if the video was from a clearly public place/event than there is no expectation of privacy in the first place, so it should be publicly available (possibly also by request for practical reasons).

RankingMember 13y ago
You're right. I was spitballing; there'd need to be safety mechanisms (The devil/corruption potential is in the details) to ensure situations like the one you hypothesized wouldn't result in the privacy of people who aren't public servants being compromised with cameras involved.